Sunday, May 21, 2017

Regarding acquiescence, as applied to the Gunatanamo lease

The US often takes an action that is not in compliance with the lease, and later claims that Cuba acquiesced. And at the same time the US repeats that "promises must be kept", or as often repeats it in latin "pacta sunt servanda", as if to emphasize the long standing acceptance of this principle as starting in the times of Rome. Yet this principle is understood to be true in every agreement, and it is explicitly stated for this lease agreement: the contract can normally be modified only by the mutual agreement of the two parties. Action followed by acquiescence does not meet the standard set in the 1934 treaty of relations, or necessarily for any agreement. A claim of breach of contract can always be raised. Some might say that silence means acceptance, but silence clearly does not mean acceptance where one party has the nuclear bomb and has a history of meddling in the affairs of the other, has an active blockade, and there is an ex-pat community that is constantly urging invasion and recapture of the lands taken by the state via eminent domain.